I know this is controversial, but hear me out. (If this goes onto a topic about racism, I will get somebody to close this.)
The idea of alignment for monsters is simple. Goblins=evil, flumph=good. I've seen many people challenge these thoughts on alignment and how it relates to monsters. I agree, not all drow are evil, same with orcs and other such creatures. But somethings are always evil. I heard some say "If angels can fall why can't demons rise?" Now, maybe I just don't know about old dnd lore, but demons aren't fallen angels. They can't be good. Also somebody said "The reason all of one thing is evil is because 11-year olds need to point their swords at something and brutally murder it. Because that's fun to them." If you're the person who said this, you are extremely pretentious.
Tell me your thoughts on alignment and races, but don't turn this into real world racism please. Nobody needs that.
Sentient beings originating from other planes of existence are bound by the alignments of their origin. A devil that somehow ceases to be lawful evil would no longer be a devil, if it even keeps existing it may become "just" a fiend or even succumb to chaos and become a demon. Creatures of the Far Realm (aberations) are so alien in their morality that the closest equivalent descriptor is a shot in the dark. Mind Flayers seem lawful evil because they follow a rigid hierarchy and take what they want with no care for other races, while a gibbering mouther is neutral because an amorphous mass of eyes and mouths is morally barely different from a wild beast.
Sentient creatures originating on the material plane are not born being Good or Evil, but are raised as a product of their society. Societies that are strongly bound to traditions venerating creatures of planar origins (be they gods or demons) are likely to raise their young to accept their societies values as "strong" and "just", but adults may still have a wildly different alignment from what society expects of them, human or goblin makes no difference.
The most common D&D adventures I've seen are about the exceptions, not the standards.
Stories are complicated things, and only so much can go into creating a foundation generic enough for everyone to write their own stories. That's the sticking point, though. Its lore is largely generic, not specific. It's up to you to make up the specifics.
Societies built on specific ideals will have the majority following those ideals, but the exceptions will exist. Depending on how radical the thinking is compared to the rest, those exceptions might stay hidden or simply leave like that Drizzt whateverhisnameis character.
MM says evil? Probably true much of the time, but that's the generic description.
Pacifist Orcs in self-sustaining communes? Sure - not common, but sure. Cave-dwelling, tribal, war-lusting Lightfoot Halflings? Sure - not common, but sure. A Fiend who's been awakened by magic or personal experience to alternatives than Evil? Sure - not common, but sure.
I keep bringing this up. As XGtE states in This is Your Life: "Ideas, not rules."
"Because MM says so" is not a very interesting story hook. It provides an idea, but if the story needs to go deeper, maybe the perceived alignment suggested by MM isn't the actual alignment once the context is exposed.
Don't restrict yourself to the stories on the pages. As far as I can tell, that was never the point. It's the starting point, sure. It's not the end point, though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I know this is controversial, but hear me out. (If this goes onto a topic about racism, I will get somebody to close this.)
The idea of alignment for monsters is simple. Goblins=evil, flumph=good. I've seen many people challenge these thoughts on alignment and how it relates to monsters. I agree, not all drow are evil, same with orcs and other such creatures. But somethings are always evil. I heard some say "If angels can fall why can't demons rise?" Now, maybe I just don't know about old dnd lore, but demons aren't fallen angels. They can't be good. Also somebody said "The reason all of one thing is evil is because 11-year olds need to point their swords at something and brutally murder it. Because that's fun to them." If you're the person who said this, you are extremely pretentious.
Tell me your thoughts on alignment and races, but don't turn this into real world racism please. Nobody needs that.
SAUCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sentient beings originating from other planes of existence are bound by the alignments of their origin. A devil that somehow ceases to be lawful evil would no longer be a devil, if it even keeps existing it may become "just" a fiend or even succumb to chaos and become a demon. Creatures of the Far Realm (aberations) are so alien in their morality that the closest equivalent descriptor is a shot in the dark. Mind Flayers seem lawful evil because they follow a rigid hierarchy and take what they want with no care for other races, while a gibbering mouther is neutral because an amorphous mass of eyes and mouths is morally barely different from a wild beast.
Sentient creatures originating on the material plane are not born being Good or Evil, but are raised as a product of their society. Societies that are strongly bound to traditions venerating creatures of planar origins (be they gods or demons) are likely to raise their young to accept their societies values as "strong" and "just", but adults may still have a wildly different alignment from what society expects of them, human or goblin makes no difference.
I am one with the Force. The Force is with me.
The most common D&D adventures I've seen are about the exceptions, not the standards.
Stories are complicated things, and only so much can go into creating a foundation generic enough for everyone to write their own stories. That's the sticking point, though. Its lore is largely generic, not specific. It's up to you to make up the specifics.
Societies built on specific ideals will have the majority following those ideals, but the exceptions will exist. Depending on how radical the thinking is compared to the rest, those exceptions might stay hidden or simply leave like that Drizzt whateverhisnameis character.
MM says evil? Probably true much of the time, but that's the generic description.
Pacifist Orcs in self-sustaining communes? Sure - not common, but sure. Cave-dwelling, tribal, war-lusting Lightfoot Halflings? Sure - not common, but sure. A Fiend who's been awakened by magic or personal experience to alternatives than Evil? Sure - not common, but sure.
I keep bringing this up. As XGtE states in This is Your Life: "Ideas, not rules."
"Because MM says so" is not a very interesting story hook. It provides an idea, but if the story needs to go deeper, maybe the perceived alignment suggested by MM isn't the actual alignment once the context is exposed.
Don't restrict yourself to the stories on the pages. As far as I can tell, that was never the point. It's the starting point, sure. It's not the end point, though.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.